An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Did the host know that "tax rebate" checks from Bush who happened to be Republican was a form of government spending and stimulus which created a deficit spending trick by reducing the surplus while putting cash into folks who don't save?
DOT COM era : Overvalued stock speculation implostion which followed an asset deflationary Asian currency crisis as well as balance budgeting of Clinton surplus creation.
Depression era: followed overspeculation that made for a stock market crash.
Reagan era : followed high oil prices of 70's with an asset deflationary oil glut & and real estate implosion of the S&L crisis.
Does the host realize that all of the above is happening simultaneously now :
We have a mini-oil glut just like the 80's, we have a real estate crisis x 30 like the 80's, we have a DOT FINANCIAL bubble popping, we have folks who are not spending like the Depression, etc ...
The evaporation of the stock market is 50% if that is realistic to say that the wealth ever existed.
The Japanese success of the 80's was followed by the molass of the 90's. Up then down.
The host could only sum things up as Liberal or not liberal.
Give him a break we know who owns Newscorp Fox, but geewhiz.
Even Paul Krugman was saying last summer that high oil prices were here to stay. Maybe that was a martial art in a campaign season, but he was wrong in the sense like Schiff - he saw the bubble pop but if I had put my money on Krugman's oil future squibble, then I would not have made any money.
There is a massive drought in Brazil and Argentina, and if you think they don't contribute to the Chicago Mercantile pricing of wheat, corn, and soy, then don't bother ...
Good points! Yes, the tax rebates were a form of deficit spending, exactly. And the host thought that the government was only able to spend more under Reagan because it had new revenues created by the tax cuts. He had the causality backward: The spending (and tax cuts) created a boom, which led to higher revenues.
Cavuto's an intelligent guy, but on economics, he's all ideology. His main rebuttal is that you're a big govt liberal . . . again, ideological. Probably the first time you've ever been called that, I'm suspecting.
Cavuto says" Yeh but your data lies. Go ahead and refer to your lying data." sheeez! I'm going to email Mr. Cavuto and ask him where I might find the truthful data.
Hi Jill! Yes, it's unfortunate that he chose to say that. It's a way for these folks to negate every argument you have (at least in their minds). When you present them with the facts and they can't help but see the truth, they say the data is wrong.
9 comments:
Did the host know that "tax rebate" checks from Bush who happened to be Republican was a form of government spending and stimulus which created a deficit spending trick by reducing the surplus while putting cash into folks who don't save?
DOT COM era : Overvalued stock speculation implostion which followed an asset deflationary Asian currency crisis as well as balance budgeting of Clinton surplus creation.
Depression era: followed overspeculation that made for a stock market crash.
Reagan era : followed high oil prices of 70's with an asset deflationary oil glut & and real estate implosion of the S&L crisis.
Does the host realize that all of the above is happening simultaneously now :
We have a mini-oil glut just like the 80's, we have a real estate crisis x 30 like the 80's, we have a DOT FINANCIAL bubble popping, we have folks who are not spending like the Depression, etc ...
The evaporation of the stock market is 50% if that is realistic to say that the wealth ever existed.
The Japanese success of the 80's was followed by the molass of the 90's. Up then down.
The host could only sum things up as Liberal or not liberal.
Give him a break we know who owns Newscorp Fox, but geewhiz.
Even Paul Krugman was saying last summer that high oil prices were here to stay. Maybe that was a martial art in a campaign season, but he was wrong in the sense like Schiff - he saw the bubble pop but if I had put my money on Krugman's oil future squibble, then I would not have made any money.
There is a massive drought in Brazil and Argentina, and if you think they don't contribute to the Chicago Mercantile pricing of wheat, corn, and soy, then don't bother ...
Good points! Yes, the tax rebates were a form of deficit spending, exactly. And the host thought that the government was only able to spend more under Reagan because it had new revenues created by the tax cuts. He had the causality backward: The spending (and tax cuts) created a boom, which led to higher revenues.
Rule of Thumb 1:
Tax revenues do not feed spending.
Rule of Thumb 2:
Bank deposits do not feed loans.
Ruble of Thumbs :
Hot borscht is not a race car.
Cavuto's an intelligent guy, but on economics, he's all ideology. His main rebuttal is that you're a big govt liberal . . . again, ideological. Probably the first time you've ever been called that, I'm suspecting.
Scott
Yes, that's what they do. They devolve into labels.
Cavuto says" Yeh but your data lies. Go ahead and refer to your lying data." sheeez! I'm going to email Mr. Cavuto and ask him where I might find the truthful data.
Hi Jill! Yes, it's unfortunate that he chose to say that. It's a way for these folks to negate every argument you have (at least in their minds). When you present them with the facts and they can't help but see the truth, they say the data is wrong.
It just goes to show you that the financial news media doesn't understand how government spending and tax cuts stimulate the economy.
If the overvaluation of the stock market did not cause the Economic downturn in 2000 and the slow down in government spending did.
Should we be asking ourselves why the private sector did not pick up the slack?
Post a Comment